Impressive responses. One point: OR is often used as a an excuse to squash certain debated points, without allowing them to devlop (including citing sources). A silly example might be something like "go find some source for your notion that the world is round, and come back when you do so." Such source can then be debated for a while. So, while NOR is policy, consensus means that common sense prevails, and that merely adding a point of debate in appropriate section, with good language, is often just a good way to get there without being excessive. *Sources are a requirement : but they arent a prerequisite.* To say so would mean that articles can't grow in the wiki way, but instead are crafted with notions of finished product. Sources can be added by any editor, not just by ones adding material. And one "side's" removal of material on the basis of an NOR claim often winds up just being an expression of easy exclusionism rather than hard sourcing for a view one might be disagreeable with. Good process is simply putting the debatable part in context, under a separate section. (Tip: I often <!-- comment // hide material --> in the article itself when Im not sure, when there's likely to be some debate, or when the section needs to be rewritten in a way Im not sure how to do.) SV --- David Gerard &lt;fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au&gt; wrote: __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

steve v (vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com) [050724 05:48]: Seconded. I'm a big fan of leaving comments in the article text for other editors where relevant. And also, when deleting something contentious, it can help to comment it out rather than just remove it. - d.